Randy Dorn was just endorsed by the Washington Democrats for Superintendent. Color me a little surprised.

Perhaps a little amusingly, I was talking to the closest thing that the Washington Democrats have to a party elder the other day and he said that Booth Gardner was seriously considering running for Superintendent.

Randy Dorn was just endorsed by the Washington Democrats for Superintendent. Color me a little surprised.

Perhaps a little amusingly, I was talking to the closest thing that the Washington Democrats have to a party elder the other day and he said that Booth Gardner was seriously considering running for Superintendent.

Perhaps eliminate the primary unless more than two candidates are running?

The one problem with that is that the system would be disjoint if that were done but voters could still vote for write-in candidates in races with a primary, and (while they possibly could have; I've heard Hawaii has no write-in candidate option for at least many of its elections, not just runoffs) the Grangers might not have wanted to bar write-in candidates from running, particularly in races where only one candidate was on the primary ballot. Can a write-in candidate in an otherwise one-candidate primary get on the general election ballot if they get enough votes? Is there a minimal number of votes for each office that a write-in candidate needs to get on the general election ballot (provided of course they are among the top two candidates in the primary)? I imagine it isn't simply 1 vote for all offices. If that were the case in Maine the Maine Green Indepdendent Party might actually field candidates in all "top ticket" races (for Governor where they always field a candidate, and for U.S. Senate and Congress where they never have fielded an official party candidate although they tried to for the Senate 1996 when they were an official party but that guy had to run as an Independent because not enough voter enrollments had been successfully done), plus a majority of Legislative races instead of the 10 or 13 respectively of 186 they ran candidates in 2006 and are doing this time. A Republican write-in candidate tried to get on the ballot for state Representative but I've heard he got only 33 write-in votes where 50 were needed, so the Democratic incumbent in that race will be unopposed in November as will 6 other incumbent House Democrats and one Democratic Senator (the former 19-year State House Speaker) who is trading seats with the incumbent State Representative. One incumbent Republican Representative is unopposed, one incumbent Independent Representative (a former Democrat) who seems rather cozy with the Republicans now has only a Democratic opponent, one incumbent Democratic Representative who replaced a resigned Republican in a special election last November has two Independent opponents but no Republican opponent, and one incumbent Democratic Representative has only a Green Independent opponent.

What do people think of Ladenburg's chances in the Attorney General race, or for Burner in the 8th? I plan to vote for Ladenburg (and don't live in Burner's district) but frankly I am skeptical about their chances.

I could not bring myself to vote for Deborah Senn in 2004. She was a bad candidate.

The Washington Democratic Party can probably best be described IMO as a herd of cats. The vast majority of the party activists are cats. They may have good intentions, but they lack long term vision or understanding. They're also just sort of weird and don't fully how things work in the world.

Then there's a group that herds them. They understand what is necessary to win, how it is to be done, and do the grunt work necessary to pull of victories. They also feel like they are constantly surrounded by idiots that they must humor.

Washington has a fairly formal system for handling write-in votes. Since most voters vote by mail, it is relatively easy to cast a write-in vote (it's also not like you are standing in a voting booth after standing in line for 15 minutes, and trying to figure how to do a write-in on a voting machine). On the other hand, because many people vote early, they may not be aware that anyone is running as a write-in candidate.

In 1994, Linda Smith won the GOP nomination for Congress, and then went on to be elected. The original GOP candidate had informally dropped out. She also had been a state senator and been involved in several initiative petition drives. She sent out mail to everyone in the district explaining how to do a write-in vote. The election was done under the blanket primary system, where both Democratic and Republican nominations were on the same ballot. In each race, voters could vote for any candidate, but the winners were determined on a party basis. So a Democratic voter might decide to vote for a Republican candidate. This could be either because they wanted that person to be elected, or because they wanted that candidate to be the Republican nominee, or because they wanted a candidate that they perceived as being weaker to be nominated, or perhaps simply because there was a choice on the Republican side, and only one candidate on the Democratic side who was sure to be nominated. Since there wasn't a Democratic race for the nomination, some people may have voted for her because of the novelty of write-in voting.

In Washington, write-in candidates may declare they are running for office. The total number of write-in votes is counted, but they are not counted for individuals unless there is a possibility of it changing the result, either by causing a write-in candidate to be nominated or elected; or by causing a result change among those who are on the ballot. This would include overvotes, undervotes, and write-ins of the following form:

[X] John Smith[X] Write-in John Smith

[ ] John Smith[X] Write-in John Smith

[ ] John Smith[ ] Write-in John Smith

all of which are valid votes for John Smith, but not machine-countable.

In Washington, originally the blanket primary was only used for the Republican and Democratic (or any other major parties) primaries. Candidates of 3rd parties and independents would be direcly by party conventions or petition, and then have their name placed on the general election ballot. Around 1970, a satirical party nominated a slate of candidates and received about 3% of the vote. After that, the legislature required that nominees of 3rd parties and independents appear on the primary ballot, and that they receive 1% of the vote in order to appear on the general election ballot. So on each office, a voter could participate in the Republican primary, the Democratic primary, or support the nomination of a 3rd party or independent candidate. Since voters may tend to choose a race where they think there is meaningful choice, they may skip over the 3rd party nominees. It might be hard to get supporters of a 3rd party to vote, simply to rubberstamp the nominations.

After the blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional, Washington switched to a Pick a Party Primary, where a voter receives a ballot similar to the the blanket party ballot with all (major) party candidates on the ballot. But a voter had to mark on the ballot which party he was voting for. Only votes for that party's candidates would then be counted. In effect, a voter had to choose which party he was a member of, but that would then be a secret choice. The Pick a Party Primary included a 1% provision, and this would be a challenge for the Libertarian Party, which briefly became a major party. Since they had few contested nominations, voters might not pick their primary to vote in. In 2004, they did have a contest gubernatorial nomination and this may have attracted enough voters to the Libertarian primary to secure a place on the general election for the statewide candidates.

When the Grange filed their initiative for the Top 2 primary, it was based on the law for the blanket primary, which was still being appealed before the 9th Circuit. It retained a 1% provision for advancing to the general election. It also specified that two candidates advance to the general election. This was done for at least two reasons. The Grange was trying to preserve the form of the blanket primary, as much as possible, and had generally produced two nominees, one Republican and one Democrat, for the previous 60+ years. In addition, the US Supreme Court, in overturning the blanket primary in California, had suggested that a non-partisan primary in which the field was winnowed to 2 (or some other number) of candidates would be constitutional - since that would removed the unconstitutional feature of the blanket primary, where Democrats could participate in the nomination of the Republican candidates and vice versa.

The provision for two candidates advancing to the general election. along with write-in voting (and formal write-in candidates) means that there is the possibility in races where only one candidate filed for the primary ballot, the two candidates might be on the general election ballot. The write-in challenger would need to get 1% of the votes in the race. Since many voters will skip a race with a single candidate, especially if that candidate had expressed a preference for a party they did not care for, the 1% threshold will be an even smaller share of those who voted in the primary. In a legislative race this might means 100 or 200 write-in votes could secure a place on the general election ballot for a write-in candidate who was somewhat organized. It will also probably require hand counting of all ballots in those races where only a single candidate filed, since it is possible that 20 to 40% of the ballots skipped the races, and would have to be examined to make sure nobody wrote in a name.

The rules that the Secretary of State promulgated for the Top 2 primary do recognize the possibility of write-in candidates. A declared write-in candidate may indicate a party preference, and if he advances to the general election, his preference will appear on the general election ballot. In addition, a write-in vote for such a candidate is not required to include the party preference of a candidate to be valid.

Write-ins and write-in candidates are also possible in the general election. However, a candidate that was eliminated in the primary, whether they were on the ballot or a declared write-in candidate, may not be a declared write-in candidate in the general election, and any casual write-in votes for such persons are void.

Washington also has true non-partisan elections. These are used for judges and also the Superintendent of Public Instruction. In these races, there is no party designation on the ballot, and any voter may vote. Further, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary (held in the same election as the partisan primary), they are elected in the primary. Otherwise the top two advance to the general election for a runoff. Parties do endorse candidates in the non-partisan elections.

Hawaii does not have write-in voting. This was challenged before the US Supreme Court, which essentially ruled that write-in voting is an essential part of voting in the US, but that Hawaii's electoral system provided a functional equivalent. Elections in the United States were originally entirely write-in. Voters would write the name of their favored candidate on a piece of paper and drop it in the election box (or in some cases vote in public or by voice). Parties could still endorse candidates, but these were more like suggestions. As a convenience to their partisans, parties would provide pre-printed ballots, though voters could cross out certain candidates or write an alternative name in.

In the early 1900s, the Australian ballot came into use, and quickly became universal. An Australian ballot is printed by the election officials and includes all the candidates running for office. It provides better ballot secrecy, makes it easier for a voter too choose among parties, and makes ballot stuffing harder. But since write-ins were always a part of the election process they were permitted on the Australian ballots. Later, the introduction of voting machines made it harder to cast a write-in vote, but it never became impossible.

In Hawaii, there is no write-in voting, but it has a late primary (September), has very minimal ballot access requirements for the primary, and all candidates including independents appear on the primary ballot, which is a pick a party format. If an independent candidate receives 10% of the total vote, or if the leading independent candidate outpolls the nominee of any party, his name will be on the general election ballot. Since very few voters participate in the 3rd party primaries, this latter standard is easy to surpass.

The Supreme Court ruled that in Hawaii since someone can get on the ballot with little effort, fairly close to the general election, that there was no reason to require write-in voting, especially given that they would require more effort by the voters.

The 46th Legislative District's race to succeed Rep. Jim McIntire for state representative in Position 1 has been no stranger to controversy this spring. There is a debate over who actually won the district line from the precinct committee, and now the two leading Democratic candidates are arguing over whether one of them is even in the race anymore.

On the afternoon of Friday, June 13, Erica C. Barnett at The Stranger reported that Scott White, a leading candidate, had withdrawn from the race upon receiving the news that he had come down with a case of pneumonia.

That Friday, White attempted to withdraw his withdrawal, and when he spoke with PolitickerWA.com White reiterated that he was still in the race, and even touted the sole endorsements of both the Washington Education Association and the Washington Conservation Voters, two highly influential interest groups in the Seattle area. White acknowledged that he had come down with a terrible illness, which he recently found out was walking pneumonia, and in the heat of his suffering felt that he would not be able to campaign for too long a time.

But the question remained, since the report came a day after Thursday's withdrawal deadleine, and was still not fully substantiated (despite this image of the King County elections website obtained by The Stranger), what did White do and when did he do it?

Back on May 15 the 46th LD Democrats held a meeting of Precinct Committee Officers to select an official nominee for the district in line with rules the state party instituted upon passage of the "top two" primary. Gerry Pollet won the nomination in a close vote of weighted PCOs, yet later that night Scott White claimed, both on his website and in an e-mail to PolitickerWA.com, that a misplaced ballot was found, thus handing the nomination to him. Regardless, Pollet, who had an uncounted ballot of his own that was disqualified for being written on the wrong colored piece of paper, remained the nominee.

Despite the nomination loss, White maintained a substantial lead in all of the normal electoral metrics. As of the end of May he had outraised Pollet $49,000 to $23,000 and, despite having greatly outspent Pollet, still held a $4,000 cash on hand advantage. White also had the endorsements of nearly every elected official in the greater Seattle area including the full 46th District delegation. This all made it so much of a surprise that White had apparently withdrawn.

Upon hearing the news, Pollet came to the conclusion that if White had truly withdrawn, state law would not allow him to "un-withdraw" pursuant to state election statute RCW 29A.24.131. It states, "No filing fee may be refunded to any candidate who withdraws under this section," and the law is otherwise very clear that upon submission of a filing withdrawal, a candidate submits his or her filing fee.

So it would seem that if White had formally submitted a withdrawal form, he would be forfeiting his filing fee and, since the filing deadline had passed nearly a week ago, would be unable to regain entry to the ballot.

On Monday, upon returning home from the state Democratic Party convention, Pollet submitted a public records request to King County Elections asking for any documents submitted by White pertaining to a withdrawal of his candidacy.

King County provided a fax from White on Tuesday afternoon, which was obtained by PolitickerWA.com. Although the fax has a hand written note on it saying "late withdrawal", the time stamp at the top of the fax clearly shows that it was sent on Thursday at 13:29, prior to the Thursday afternoon deadline imposed by the Secretary of State's office and King County.

Adding further intrigue to the story is the fact that the fax number the document was sent from is the fax number for the office of King County Executive, where White works as a Special Projects Manager. Sending faxes for political means from a King County office is a clear violation of ethics.

Pollet has requested that White be removed from the ballot in accordance with what he says are election laws that preclude White from withdrawing his withdrawal. Given the overwhelming Democratic slant of the 46th District, such a move would all but hand him a seat in the legislature.